Recent posts by burningcheez on Kongregate

Well, it depends on how ridiculous you want to get. The US or our military could be under the Pentagon for using them as informants in the first place. And the informants themselves could be under that for becoming informants.

Now the way I see it, Wikileaks has a more significant burden of responsiblity than the Pentagon but less than the Taliban. More than the Pentagon because they still had the option to censor names, less than the Taliban because they obviously aren’t killing people. Now…what does that all mean? What do we do after labeling it as such, assuming we agree on that?

I’m not sure. I suppose you would have to determine at what point on this spectrum do those above it share blame for what the top does.

Should there be no consequences for it?

It was more the wording than the consequences. Especially aiding and abetting which implies they’re actively helping out the murderers or collaborating with them. I don’t think a punishment of some sort is necessarily unreasonable, but that could potentially set a bad precedent too, I think. It sounds like a silly suggestion, but if their goal is more transparency, perhaps we could deal with them and promise more transparency in exchange for censoring names to protect people?

and it also violates a reasonable expectation to privacy…or does it?

I think how the guy in that link calls them spies is interesting. Do people spying on us have a reasonable expectation to privacy? If wikileaks released documents from another country about spies or traitors to the US, would wikileaks deserve punishment from that country?

Wikileaks had the option to censor names, and they didn’t. Thus they are responsible for it. You can’t blame someone else for what they did.

Aren’t you (partially) blaming them for what the Taliban might do? I’m leaning towards it being a bad idea to have released the names, but saying that there should be legal consequences for aiding and abetting murderers and for “reckless disregard for human life” seems rather extreme. Especially considering the military doesn’t exactly show a greater regard for human life.

It’s true that the parents are the ones who get to exercise that right and not the children, but that really is another topic. All we need to know is that there is that right.

If the parents decide whether or not their children can exercise their rights, then they aren’t rights at all. I was specifically talking about how it should be that only willing students are reciting it everywhere. Whether or not “there is that right” (and in Florida it isn’t there any more than it was before that boy’s case) isn’t the point.

Still no. It applies to certain uses of religious words, not all use of religious words. Otherwise every document that even so much as mentions a church or religious group would also fall under that. The government wouldn’t function very well if that were the case.

Of course the mere mentioning of something religious is allowed. But there’s quite a big difference between acknowledging the existence of Christianity and saying that we are a “nation under God.” If you were being so general as to include the former, I don’t think anyone was disagreeing with you on that.

You may have noticed how that court case ended…with the affirmation that you can’t be forced to say the pledge.

With your parents’ permission. So there will be unwilling students forced to say it.

I suppose the quote mentioning California should have indicated you were talking about a specific case, but, still, that’s how it should be everywhere, which doesn’t seem to be the case.

That particular action may have indeed violated the lemon test, but that would have only been applicable at the time.

Does it? Amendments themselves apply to things that happened before their ratification, don’t they? I don’t see why an interpretation of one would only apply to later actions. Anyway, I’d say it’s a decent argument that there is something “stating the government can’t have religious words in official statements,” whether or not it applies to the pledge.

I’m not at all sure that the inclusion of the phrase in question violated this at all. Obama stating that he is Christian does not equal an endorsement of or deference to religion, and nor does claiming that an overwhelmingly monotheistic country is monotheistic.

Obama saying something is not necessarily an action of the government. Officially adding “under God” to the pledge is. And it’s not endorsement of religion that’s the problem (that’s certainly harder to argue), but the lack of a secular purpose.

Are you being intentionally dense? We have already pointed out multiple times it is not mandatory. Learn to read and comprehend.
For the 3rd (4th?) time:
“Pursuant to California Education Code § 52720, the Rio
Linda Union School District in California (“the School District”)
has a practice that every morning, willing students, led
by their teachers, face the American Flag, place their right
hands over their hearts, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.”
Last time I said I had faith you could comprehend that simple phrase, now that faith is rapidly dissolving. If you can’t grasp this much, arguing anything else is just a waste of time.

It would be nice if this were true everywhere (though not perfect), but it doesn’t look like it is.

“Cameron Frazier, then a 17-year-old Boynton Beach High School student, won his 2006 suit in part. As a result, students in Florida no longer are forced to say the pledge, although they can face discipline for refusing without the permission of a parent.”

For the record, there really is nothing stating the government can’t have religious words in official statements; just that specific religious endorsements and such are prohibited.

It seems “terrorist” is used more when it’s convenient rather than reserved for foreigners. The Fort Hood shooter wasn’t white, was he? And I think there was similar disagreement with whether or not he was a terrorist. But when it’s found out Obama had associated with Bill Ayers, he was “pallin’ around with terrorists!”

Blue: Abolished for all crimes
Green: Abolished for crimes not committed in exceptional circumstances (such as crimes committed in time of war)
Orange: Abolished in practice
Red: Legal form of punishment for certain offenses

So, you’re only against the law because your religious beliefs tell you that it’s wrong, regardless of whether or not they killed people themselves and the cost on society of keeping them around?

Cost should be irrelevant, but it’s more expensive to execute them.

I think he might be pointing out how ridiculous it is for a country that’s 80% Christian to practice the death penalty, not necessarily sharing his beliefs. But, anyway, what’s your justification for the death penalty? I’m sure it’s no less baseless.

That doesn’t change what I said. I still don’t know of any non far left individuals who use the term. (obviously in a derogatory manner)

I think you adding “in a derogatory manner” does change what you said. And I’m pretty sure anyone who leans even the slightest bit left and finds these people to be silly would use the term in a derogatory manner. I don’t think you can get away with having multiple “far left individuals” on a news channel.

Really? I mean, every single show he rants against republicans, he almost never has any republican/conservative view points on his show (while always having liberal viewpoints), his “worst person of the world” is almost ALWAYS a republican, etc, etc.

And? That doesn’t mean he’s any more left than a Democrat. And Democrats are hardly, if at all, left to begin with. The political compass test’s site put Obama and Biden slightly up and to the right of center during the election. They say that “Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of a moderate conservative,” and that Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, who are “depicted on the extreme left” in America, “would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe.”

If Kieth Olbermann were far left, even relative to the US, you would see him criticize Obama and other Democrats a lot more, especially now.

Let me give you an example:
“In Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees.” – Kieth Olbermann

Which he apologized for. Besides, half that stuff isn’t the least bit controversial; “homophobic” is practically a given in republicans. The other half of the comments were just not very well-thought-out and very weakly justified. That’s not something limited to the far left.

Attempts to function without market prices, as in communism or collectivist anarchism, force people to operate without the signals that serve as a guide to whether a particular action is giving people what they want.

Why is a business losing money analogous to pain, but the lack of what these communist people “want” isn’t? Surely they would know that they’re missing something? If they don’t, then did they really want it to begin with?

Well, the home page of the Daily Kos calls everyone in the Tea Party group teabaggers. Can you tell me of one non far left individual who says that?
Actually the only other person I have every heard say that is Keith Olberman.

There’s some guy on Fox News around 0:45 saying how they’re going to “teabag the whitehouse,” and several other examples. Teabaggers themselves referred to their actions as “teabagging,” otherwise it wouldn’t make any sense to refer to them as teabaggers. You might as well call anyone you disagree with a teabagger at that point.

And “far left?” Really? I think that’s quite a bit of a stretch. What makes Keith Olbermann far left?

If only we wouldn’t slander an entire demographic without any evidence while simultaneously claiming the moral high ground.

When was the last time cops in the US refused to attack protesters?

If only we weren’t pricks to certain groups while griping that other groups are being pricks to us.

It’s rather disingenuous to say the problem is that they’re pricks. You might as well say we should stop imprisoning criminals. After all, we can’t be mean to people while complaining that they’re being mean to us.

The fact that obesity decreases your life expectancy should be reason enough to tax it already.

No it shouldn’t. I’m not sure what choosing to live a shorter life has to do with morality (or why persuading people to live a moral life should end with taxes), but morality should have no bearing on taxes.

Obese individuals spend an additional $1429 a year or about 42% more than their normal-weight counterparts. The researchers estimate that the costs of treating obese individuals in 2008, paid by Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers, soared to $147 billion.

If $1429 is 42% of the cost of a normal-weight person, they cost $3400 a year, while an obese person costs $4829. Obesity decreases life expectancy by about 6-7 years, so, after an average of 6.5 years extra years, a normal-weight person will have cost an extra $22,100. At a difference of $1429, an obese person would have to live for around 15.465 years on Medicare in order to make up for this. Considering Medicare starts when one is 65, and the average life expectancy in the US is around 77 (which would need to be decreased by a few years to account for obesity), that’s not likely. So, on average, obese people would cost less on Medicare.

Medicaid is a bit more complicated, but I don’t think it matters whether or not obese people on Medicaid cost more. Obese people on Medicare end up costing less, obese people on neither don’t cost anything (right?), and obese people on Medicaid may or may not cost more. But if they’re on Medicaid, they must have been considered poor enough. It isn’t fair to single out and tax an arbitrary group of people outside Medicaid that isn’t contributing to increased costs. And it isn’t fair or sensible to single out that arbitrary group within a program that is designed to help those with lower incomes. Why shouldn’t everyone pay more taxes for Medicaid?

That’s because DARE is stupid. Also, I imagine more of your money is being spent on drug users while drugs are illegal. There would likely be less overdoses if they weren’t, less money spent on imprisoning drug users, and more money gained by taxing drugs.

I don’t understand the focus on obesity here. Either you find out the costs of any behavior or condition that would affect them, or you don’t. You can’t simply single out one sort of behavior because you don’t approve of it, especially if you’re only assuming that it raises costs for everyone else. What if obese people end up dying earlier and end up costing less overall? Do we encourage people to be obese? Tax healthy food? Or is it acceptable for one to be a burden so long as you approve of their behavior?

And this tax sounds like a horrible idea to me. It doesn’t even serve the purpose of targeting the obese; there are plenty of non-obese (is there a term for that?) people who eat fast food and candy and whatnot. It also seems like it would be regressive.

If you don’t want people to eat unhealthy food, why don’t you propose better education? Education about transfats was mentioned earlier, but when is this supposed to take place? I have no idea what they are. The only mention of them I heard in school was a brief tangent my biology teacher went on. We learned nothing about them in health (and very little about food or exercise in general), probably because we were too busy watching movies trying to scare us out of taking drugs.

The bill passed the first committee, but it doesn’t have time to be heard by the second. It is apparently the first time a legislature in the US has acknowledged that maybe criminalization is not the best idea. Which is pretty interesting, even if it has no chance of passing at this point, I think.

Did you watch the video? They were told to leave, and it was when they refused that the cops were called.

At what point? I don’t hear that guy ever telling them to leave.

As for the person who made the video, his record is less than stellar considering we have already caught him on at least one flat out lie.

That lie is what?

He has an obvious bias, and the video is nothing more than an attempt to play the victim when they were clearly in the wrong.

So does the cop and the worker. And they certainly aren’t clearly in the wrong. The worker was apparently fired and charged with assault, and the cop was suspended, while none of the kids were charged with anything.

There is no reason to presume it was illegal.

I’m not saying there is. Only that there is no reason to presume it was legal, which would be the justification for deleting pmr’s post.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it. The sentencing would be lighter (this is all civil stuff of course), but you don’t get a free ride just because you are ignorant.

When you’re negligent, it’s not. And besides, it’s not ignorance of the law. It’s ignorance of the fact that they were on private property, which is perfectly reasonable. You can’t make simply standing on private property a crime. That would be insane. They have to be given a chance to leave upon finding out that they are on private property. If this were truly how trespassing functioned, one could simply lead a cop over to whoever they want arrested, tell them to leave, and then immediately have them arrested. That would be ridiculous.

Btw, there is a better video of a cop arresting kids on a public sidewalk and choking two of them out.

I saw that one too. It’s pretty crazy. Do you know what happened to the kids or the cop?

The kid committed a crime (trespassing). Therefore the arrest is lawful.

Then why didn’t he arrest all of them? Why were none of them charged with anything? Why does the person who put up the video think it’s public property? Why did no one ever tell them to leave? There is nowhere near enough information to say that they were trespassing, and the information we do have hardly points that way.

They did not comply, they were still there.

Well, of course. They can’t teleport, unfortunately.

Does mens rea not apply to trespassing? If they weren’t aware it was private property, and started to leave after being told it was, at no point in that time could they have intended to trespass.

How can you be so sure? The cop tells them all to leave, and, after they comply, he starts antagonizing one of them for no apparent reason. Then he tells the kid that he can push the kid around or arrest him if he wants. If not unlawful, that’s certainly questionable.

And you can hardly say that they were trespassing. You have the cop saying it’s private property and the people making the video saying its public, yet the person who would most likely know the best (the worker) says nothing about it. No one is seen telling the kids to leave until the cop does, either. In fact, the worker even tells one of them to stay there.

Hey, do you like games? So do we — that’s what makes Kongregate the best source of free games online. We have thousands upon thousands of free online games, from both one-man indies and large studios, rated and filtered so you can play the best of the best. Read more »